{Converted to html. The PDF is the
controlling document. JM}
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 1 of 9
Adam McMillen
amcmillen@bhfs.com
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Telephone: 775.324.4100
Facsimile: 775.333.8171
Attorneys for JED
MARGOLIN
IN THE UNITED STATES
BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEVADA
Case No. BK-N-16-50644-BTB
Adversary No. 17-05016-BTB
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JED MARGOLIN TO THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
In Re JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtor.
__________________________________/
FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL 14, 1997; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JED MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN; and all other parties claimingan interest in real properties described in this action,
Defendants.
Defendant Jed Margolin, by and through his counsel of record, Adam McMillen, hereby responds to the complaint as follows:
-1-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 2 of 9
ANSWER
Answering the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint, Jed Margolin states as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the complaint.
2. Defendant admits that jurisdiction is proper.
3. Defendant consents to entry of a final order or judgment by the Bankruptcy Court.
4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the complaint.
5. Defendant admits that venue is proper.
6. Defendant lacks knowledge that Sadri is a resident of Clark County, Nevada, and lacks knowledge as to Sadri’s status as a trustee of any trust, and therefore Defendant denies any such allegations; further, Defendant denies SLT is a legal owner of the Property.
7. Defendant lacks
knowledge that the Koroghli’s are residents of
8. Defendant lacks knowledge regarding Zandian’s residency status as he has maintained addresses all around the world, including in Nevada and California, and therefore denies the allegations regarding the same; Defendant admits that Zandian at one time had ownership interests in the Property but through the default judgment, Defendant now owns or is entitled to all of Zandian’s rights to the Property, and Defendant denies the remaining allegations; Defendant admits that Zandian has used multiple aliases.
9. Defendant denies
residing in
-2-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 3 of 9
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10. Defendant admits that such a document (Number 2900592) appears to have been recorded with the Washoe County Recorder; Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the complaint.
11. Defendant admits that such a document (Number 2900592) appears to have been recorded with the Washoe County Recorder; Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the complaint.
12. Defendant admits that such a document (Number 2900593) appears to have been recorded with the Washoe County Recorder; Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the complaint.
13. Defendant admits that such a civil action appears to have occurred; Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the complaint.
14. Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the complaint.
15. Defendant admits this
happened and adds that the Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award was recorded
in
16. Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the complaint.
17. Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the complaint.
18.
Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained in
paragraph 18 of the complaint.
-3-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 4 of 9
19. Defendant admits that such a document (Number 3758659) appears to have been recorded with the Washoe County Recorder; Defendant lacks knowledge and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the complaint.
20. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the complaint.
21. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the complaint.
22. Admit; however Defendant lacks knowledge if Plaintiffs assisted Zandian in that action and therefore denies any such allegation.
23. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the complaint; the Default Judgment
was recorded in
24. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the complaint.
25. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the complaint.
26. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the complaint.
27. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the complaint.
28. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the complaint.
29. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the complaint.
30. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the complaint.
31. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the complaint.
32. Cannot admit or deny as it appears to be a statement of law.
33. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the complaint.
34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the complaint.
35. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the complaint.
36. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the complaint.
37.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the complaint.
-4-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 5 of 9
38. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the complaint.
39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the complaint.
40. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the complaint.
41. Cannot admit or deny as it appears to be a statement of law.
42. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the complaint.
43. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the complaint.
44. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the complaint.
45. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the complaint.
46. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the complaint.
47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the complaint.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Quiet Title/Declaratory Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 et seq., and NRS 40.010 et seq. versus all Defendants)
48. Paragraph 48 is an incorporation paragraph that is neither admitted nor denied.
49. Defendant admits this Court has the power to declare the rights of Defendant to the property in question; Defendant denies the remaining allegations.
50. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 50 of the complaint.
51. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 51 of the complaint.
52. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 52 of the complaint as Defendant’s ownership is not adverse to Plaintiffs’ interest.
53. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the complaint.
54. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the complaint.
55. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the complaint.
56. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 56 of the complaint.
57.
Defendant admits the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
-5-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 6 of 9
58. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 58 of the complaint.
59. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 59 of the complaint.
60. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 60 of the complaint.
61. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 61 of the complaint.
62. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 62 of the complaint.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Permanent and Preliminary Injunction versus All Defendants)
63. Paragraph 63 is an incorporation paragraph that is neither admitted nor denied.
64. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 64 of the complaint.
65. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 65 of the complaint.
66. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 66 of the complaint.
67. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 67 of the complaint.
68. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 68 of the complaint.
69. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 69 of the complaint.
70. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 70 of the complaint.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment versus All Defendants)
71. Paragraph 71 is an incorporation paragraph that is neither admitted nor denied.
72. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 72 of the complaint.
73. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the complaint.
74. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 74 of the complaint.
75. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 75 of the complaint.
76. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 76 of the complaint.
77. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 77 of the complaint.
78.
Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 78 of the complaint.
-6-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 7 of 9
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses, reserving the right to assert additional defenses when and if they become appropriate.
First Affirmative Defense
To the extent applicable, Defendant hereby incorporates by reference all affirmative defenses set forth in Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to this Adversary Proceeding pursuant to Rule 7008 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
Second Affirmative Defense
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Third Affirmative Defense
The complaint and its claim for relief therein, are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiffs, by their own conduct or the conduct of their predecessors in interest, have waived their claims asserted in the complaint.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
The causes of action in the complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because they are not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer to correct and add defenses as further information regarding the Plaintiffs’ claims becomes available to it through the course of discovery or otherwise.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, having
answered the complaint, prays that the same be dismissed and the Plaintiff take
nothing thereby, and that Defendant be awarded reasonable costs and attorney
fees in defending the same as allowed by law. Further, Defendant prays for
-7-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 8 of 9
judgment against Plaintiffs declaring Defendant as the sole title owner of the property in question.
DATED: June 29, 2017.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
/s/ Adam P. McMillen
Adam P. McMillen, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
Jed Margolin
-8-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 13 Entered 06/29/17 10:59:48 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, and on this 29th day of June, 2017, I served the document entitled ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JED MARGOLIN TO THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the parties listed below via the following:
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Fred Sadri, as Trustee for The Star Living Trust, dated April 14, 1997; Ray Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli, as Managing Trustees for Koroghli Management Trust
VIA
FIRST CLASS
/s/ Jeff Tillison
Employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
15787330
-9-